GBRedneck

Of course, that's got to be it. Chuck Norris described himself as being un-athletic and on top of that, he broke his shoulder during his first two weeks of marital arts training. Yet he retired as undefeated Middleweight Full Contact Karate champion. Do you think that was because of some "revealed talent" or because he practiced for five hours every day? So.... You are honestly...with a straight face....telling me that if I had only worked harder when I was younger I could have been as good as Irving Fryer as a WR or Mike Rozier as a RB or Turner Gill as a QB...Or...if I so choose, I could have been the next Dave Rimington. All I was missing is the hard work they obviously put in. Ben Hogan always said that anyone that didn't have some sort of physical disabilty could learn to shoot scratch golf. I agree with him. But most people aren't willing to put in the amount of effort required, mostly because there are no guarantees. So in principle, I agree with Bowfin. I'm not talking golf. It's a simple yes or no question. You have never seen me, or know me or have any clue what I was like athletically as a child. Do you believe I could have been the next Irving Fryar, Mike Rozier, Turner Gill or Dave Rimington if I had only worked harder? Hogan didn't say you could be the next Hogan, or the next Old Tom Morris. He said you could play scratch golf. Without knowing your build, I wouldn't say you could be the next Dave Rimington or the next Kareem Abdul-Jabar. But I would say, from the time you're a small child, if you love a particular team sport enough to spend every waking minute playing, learning and improving at it, then you could make it to the highest level of that sport. I would never tell anybody anything different. Heh, and I get accused of being a pessimist.

HAHAHAHA! Some programs are more concerned with winning games than they are with winning congeniality contests. HAAHAHA! his 5-6 record at YSU will really pull in the offers. Know how I know you're not an athletic director?

Of course, that's got to be it. Chuck Norris described himself as being un-athletic and on top of that, he broke his shoulder during his first two weeks of marital arts training. Yet he retired as undefeated Middleweight Full Contact Karate champion. Do you think that was because of some "revealed talent" or because he practiced for five hours every day? So.... You are honestly...with a straight face....telling me that if I had only worked harder when I was younger I could have been as good as Irving Fryer as a WR or Mike Rozier as a RB or Turner Gill as a QB...Or...if I so choose, I could have been the next Dave Rimington. All I was missing is the hard work they obviously put in. Ben Hogan always said that anyone that didn't have some sort of physical disabilty could learn to shoot scratch golf. I agree with him. But most people aren't willing to put in the amount of effort required, mostly because there are no guarantees. So in principle, I agree with Bowfin.

I think that's very open to interpretation. You could also blame Global Warming. Or Osborne retiring... Are there NU fans that are mad at Osborne retiring when he did? I am just curious. Yes. Most of them hated Frank and Bo, but love/d Callahan V.1 and V.2. I would love to do some psychological studies on that group. Mind boggling. I have a strong suspicion that on average, they never played football at a high level. I suspect they get their idea of "good coach" from football movies. They liked V.1 because he looked like Beau Bridges and could play himself in the made for TV Husker movie, and Riley is also a not a bad looking guy. Bo and Frank would never win any beauty contests. Therefore, Callahan and Riley are better coaches than Frank and Bo, wins be damned!

Why the inflammatory rhetoric? Nobody hates Riley. I like Riley a lot better than Harbaugh. but I realize that Harbaugh is a MUCH better football coach. So because you think Harbaugh is a better coach than Riley you wouldn't sh#t on him as much as you have Riley? If he came here and performed as bad as Riley I would be just as critical of Harbaugh, probably moreso because he's a jackass. I wouldn't have been as critical of the initial hire, as Harbaugh's resume is orders of magnitude better than Riley's.

Frankly, it's hard for me to comprehend how anyone other than a paid shill could possibly defend Perlman's actions and decisions in relation to the football program.

I think that's very open to interpretation. You could also blame Global Warming. What effect did global warming have on the Steve Pederson hire?

Why the inflammatory rhetoric? Nobody hates Riley. I like Riley a lot better than Harbaugh. but I realize that Harbaugh is a MUCH better football coach.

Don't let him see the Iowa film.

It's pretty obvious that the demise of Husker football coincides with Perlman's tenure (and decisions). Once Perlman is gone, we might be able to get things back on track. But there's no guarantee.

It sucks that a senior doesn't get to finish the season and go to the bowl game, but it sounds like it was all on the player. Rules are rules.

I thought Tommy was transferring to TCU?

Hard to say. 41-21 certainly felt like a blowout in 2013 when UCLA had 38 unanswered points against a Nebraska team that simply gave up. Then again, we were told the 30-13 loss to South Carolina in the Capitol One Bowl in 2011 and the 45-31 loss to Georgia there the next year were moral victories, proving Nebraska could hang for almost three quarters with an SEC team. My prediction? You won't be happy. I've been feeling a little blue lately. Could you send me a PM and tell me what would make me happy? TIA

Would 41-21 be a blowout?

True. Better jimmies and joes can make up for some coaching deficits. Yep. Suh, Lavonte David, Ameer, Rex, Helu, etc. definitely proved that. You're trying too hard.

Bo liked stars but he liked his hunches better. Callahan was the best recruiter we have had after Tom left. We shall have to wait and see on Riley, but the pantry was ultimately bare for him. Callahan was certainly a better recruiter than a coach. But he wasn't vastly superior in recruiting. In 2007, 4 years in, he was still starting as many as 7 Solich guys on offense.

True. Better jimmies and joes can make up for some coaching deficits.

Officer indicted on 6 murder charges: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3363841/White-Chicago-cop-accused-shooting-black-teenager-Laquan-McDonald-16-times-indicted-Grand-Jury-six-counts-degree-murder.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

Stoltenberg too Hurt his knee. Surgery required. Expected back by fall.

HAHAHAHA! Some programs are more concerned with winning games than they are with winning congeniality contests.

Do you have any examples of how "all of a sudden you have a circus after every game."? I have not seen this happen and, to my knowledge, all other groups and religions are able to do the same thing if they wish to. When exactly has it turned into a circus? Also, I must comment on this; "if the guy is such a good Christian, why doesn't he take Jesus's advice?" Gotta love it when someone basically ignores the overall gist of Jesus' message yet has no hesitancy to pick and choose what specific "advice" others should take and apparently which they should ignore. It sort of came off like you were ridiculously attempting to say that Jesus would not approve of a group prayer after the game........oh wait, that is what you said. I linked an article above about the Satanic Temple of Seattle planning to join in the 50 yard line prayer. As to your other comments, are you accusing me of ignoring Jesus's message? What part of Jesus's message did I suggest that people ignore? Are you confusing me with someone else? I suggest you read the gospels. Jesus was very clear in Matt 6. The coach is obviously ignoring that advice. I'm not judging him (more advice from Jesus). I'm just pointing out what he's doing. Personally, I try to follow all of Jesus's teachings. Bump for JJ since I'm no longer on his ignore list.

Epley didn't actually use the "Jimmies and Joes" line did he?

You know, I have never heard a WINNING coach or anyone connected to a WINNING program ever use the "Jimmies and Joes" excuse explanation...probably because winners don't need any excuses. That, and the WINNING programs think they win because they outwork and outperform everybody. Vince Lombardi's Packers, Osborne's Cornhuskers, Walsh's '49ers, Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide, etc., etc. Switzer said it and the stargazers of today take him completely out of context. Switzer said it when he was WINNING, to give credit to his players. He didn't say it when he was losing as an excuse for his poor coaching.

This ain't happening. Bo's got the perfect job now. Hometown school, kids going to his old high school, lot less of a microscope to work under, and he's still getting paid top 30 D1 HC salary.

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice? He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around. But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent. Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach. Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way. ^^^This^^^ You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley. I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more. You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false. For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him). Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it. I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship... Here's a fun fact: Solich's .500 winning percentage in his worst single season (by far) at Nebraska is better than Riley's current lifetime average winning percentage as a head coach in over 300 games. But that doesn't explain how he managed only 7 wins with all the "evidence" saying he was destined to be better.. Are you struggling with the difference between evidence and proof?